Protestant Canon

[Topper17]

I’m deeply suspicious of any list that includes 43. Clearly nonsense, given Luther’s track record on Baptism and Eucharist.

Hi Novo,

I provided the information about how you could find the Armstrong article. If you were that suspicious, you could have easily gone to the article, where you would have learned that Armstrong did not cook up this list of 50 things out of his imagination. They are from Luther’s actual writings. In this particular case, from “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”. The specific quote is:

“I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that the can be proved from Scripture”. Luther

Armstrong then comments:

"(Interesting comment, In any event, Protestantism generally held to two sacraments, and the denial that there was any proof in Scripture is radically contrary to the Catholic position, making Luther ‘heretical’ again insofar as he denied yet another received Catholic teaching: that Jesus instituted all seven sacraments and that the Bible sufficiently indicates this.) "Dave Armstrong

Please note exactly what Dave said - that Luther said that they could not be proved from Scripture and that is exactly what Luther actually said. What you might have 'heard" was that Luther denied all seven sacraments and of course he did not. That was not Dave’s point. His article was accurate.

As I stated in my earlier post, I knew that people were going to pick at one or more of the 50 things, claiming that they agree their personal opinions. Its a grain of sand in a brick in a large wall. Your opinion about any of the 50 things is just that. What is significant is the number of things where Luther felt he had the authority to challenge.

Of course, Protestantism is comfortable with the idea that virtually anything can be challenged or questioned.

So, how’s that workin out fer ya? In other words, does Christianity need a few more denominations or should we hold fast with the number we have?

God Bless You Novo, Topper

BTW, maybe next time you will be more trusting of what Dave Armstrong says.

 

[Topper17]

I could fill multiple posts responding to the polemics, hyperboles, straw men and downright falsities in Armstrong’s ‘50 Theses,’ but I’m not sure what purpose it would serve; you’ve appear to have made up your mind when it comes to Luther and Lutheranism. James and Jon have already provided legitimate, historically-based responses using highly-credible sources. In fact, several times in this thread, they’ve brought forth the very same sources you have - only they haven’t twisted the authors’ intent by picking-and-choosing bits to post or omit. If their steadfast and educated minds are unable to break through the tired polemics to hold a real discussion with you, I certainly am unable. No, I’ll sit this one out before my frustration finds me a reason to go to Confession.

May God bless you as well, Topper. I look forward to a day when we lay folk can discuss our respective communions’ histories as honestly as our leaders do.

Hi Stedo,

Thanks for your amusing post. Maybe you should write those multiple posts and see how it turns out for you, Serioulsy, if you think you have the upper hand and cannot be defeated, then go for it. Just make sure you are not underestimating your opponent,

For the record Stedo, I too look foreward to the days that our two communions can deal with each other honestly. When do you think that will be possible?

God Bless You Stedo, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So the Church of England uses the DC’s

How about anyone else?

What happened to the DC’s? Who, When, Where, Why, and How determined to take them out?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Stedo,

Thanks for your amusing post. Maybe you should write those multiple posts and see how it turns out for you, Serioulsy, if you think you have the upper hand and cannot be defeated, then go for it. Just make sure you are not underestimating your opponent,

For the record Stedo, ** I too look foreward to the days that our two communions can deal with each other honestly. When do you think that will be possible?**

God Bless You Stedo, Topper

It has already happened in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue with the conclusion that “church dividing” issues are essentially gone.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It has already happened in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue with the conclusion that “church dividing” issues are essentially gone.

Hardly,

What your communion considers the Office of the Anti-Christ has decreed:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11607396]Jon, I am not sure I understand how you can claim that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone was not radical. Alister McGrath, who is my favorite Protestant scholar claims (over and over again) that SBFA IS radical.

Then, Tim, by all means, agree with McGrath instead of Akins, or the Vatican, at least as it presents the JDDJ.

The fact is that Luther judged the canon and the apostolicity of various books, on, among other things, how well they agreed or disagreed with his radical theory of Salvation by Faith Alone. That is very much putting the cart before horse.

Source, please where Luther says he judges the books of the Bible based on justification. I’m currently reading Wisdom, and just finished Judith. I don’t recall any mention of the topic of Justification in either preface.

Furthermore, we have no choice but to see Luther as being the source of the Lutheran concepts of the NT homologoumena and antilegomena. Those books which Luther judged to be of secondary rank are Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. You explain, repeatedly, how the Lutheran church has done this in because of the judgments of the ancient Church.

Sure, if you discount Eusebius and others.

“Luther knew that those books had been disputed in earlier days: that, however, is not his main reason for relegating them to a secondary status. He appears to have had no difficulty with 2 Peter or 2 or 3 John, which had also been disputed. His main reason is that in the four relegated books he could not find that clear promotion of Christ which was the principle note of holy scripture. (Protestant) F. F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture”, pg 244, from a Dave Armstrong article

Every man to his opinion. But in no case does Luther claim an authority over others to agree with his opinions.

So why didn’t Luther and why don’t Lutherans question the canonicity of 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John? After all, if they “follow” the ancient Fathers, then they would have to place these three books in the Antilegomena. To not do so is to be very subjective, which of course is a charge that Protestantism is used to dealing with (but not successfully).

Because you don’t know the answer makes it subjective?

a suggestion, Tim. Why don’t you try a different approach. Why don’t you approach this from a positive POV. Provide positive reasons for the Catholic Church’s position on the DC’s. With those that do, please take note that I don’t use the scorched earth approach to dialogue. No Catholic has been flamed in this thread by me.

Really, Tim, your approach is tiring. There is so much common ground between our communions, as I pointed out in referencing Akins and other things. You made the comment to Don:

or the record Stedo, I too look foreward to the days that our two communions can deal with each other honestly. When do you think that will be possible?

I would suggest that there has been 50 years of honest dialogue between our communions, and respectfully suggest that none of it looks like what you do.

Jon, I would like to know if you can explain how the Lutheran church divided up the NT into the homologoumena and the antilegomena. In addition, I would like to understand how 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were not cordoned off from the ‘better part’ of the NT with the books that Luther judged to be ‘lesser’. Also, I would like to know who, specifically and exactly, it was that made this decision for Lutheranism. Where were these people from? Did they represent Christianity from across the whole world, or were they a small group of extremely like minded people from a very small geography?

I posted a link to an article on this thread a while back that provides a good bit of this information.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

So the Church of England uses the DC’s

How about anyone else?

What happened to the DC’s? Who, When, Where, Why, and How determined to take them out?

TEC uses them as well. They are actually in our Sunday readings here and there. I even know some Episcopalians that believe in Purgatory.

 

[GKC]

TEC uses them as well. They are actually in our Sunday readings here and there. I even know some Episcopalians that believe in Purgatory.

I even know Anglicans that do.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

Is it not true that prior to the liturgical reforms of the 60s no one read the DCs in church? Before then it was Episitle and then the Gospel.

GCK I think you prefer 1929 prayer book, so I would assume that you don’t hear an Old Testament reading in liturgy?

Are readings from the DCs ever done at Morning and Evening prayer in the 1929 BCP?

 

[GKC]

Is it not true that prior to the liturgical reforms of the 60s no one read the DCs in church? Before then it was Episitle and then the Gospel.

GCK I think you prefer 1929 prayer book, so I would assume that you don’t hear an Old Testament reading in liturgy?

Are readings from the DCs ever done at Morning and Evening prayer in the 1929 BCP?

The 1928 Book.

And yes, a Lesson from the OT at every Mass. AFAIK, that was the custom for Anglo-Catholics, unless it was a strict Prayer Book Mass. And even now, in such a case, we get the Lesson. I normally am lector for the Epistle and Psalm read at the Mass though occasionally I do the Lesson. Two times ago, it was from the DCs.

As to Morning and Evening Prayer, yes. The first Lesson for Evening Prayer, for 11 Jan is from Tobit, for example. From the 28 BCP, at least.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

What happened to the DC’s? Who, When, Where, Why, and How determined to take them out?

This has already been touched on early in the thread. First, the DCs were segregated from the Old Testament in their own section called “Apocrypha”. It was not until the nineteenth century that English language Bible publishers excluded the Apocrypha from Bible editions in order to print cheaper Bibles. This was a time when Protestants wanted to print as many Bibles as possible for distribution to as many people as possible, which led them to find ways to cut costs. Because the Apocrypha were not used to establish doctrine, removing it was a convenient way to cut costs. That’s the main reason most English-language Protestant Bibles lack the Apocrypha. A purely pragmatic publishing decision.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This has already been touched on early in the thread. First, the DCs were segregated from the Old Testament in their own section called “Apocrypha”. It was not until the nineteenth century that English language Bible publishers excluded the Apocrypha from Bible editions in order to print cheaper Bibles. This was a time when Protestants wanted to print as many Bibles as possible for distribution to as many people as possible, which led them to find ways to cut costs. Because the Apocrypha were not used to establish doctrine, removing it was a convenient way to cut costs. That’s the main reason most English-language Protestant Bibles lack the Apocrypha. A purely pragmatic publishing decision.

So the bottom line is that Publishers determined the Protestant Canon in the English language?

Oh my…

 

[Novocastrian]

So the bottom line is that Publishers determined the Protestant Canon in the English language?

Oh my…

They decided what was printed. Are you suggesting that when a Roman Catholic publisher prints the NT by itself, said publisher is rejecting the rest of the canon?

 

[Symphorian]

Is it not true that prior to the liturgical reforms of the 60s no one read the DCs in church? Before then it was Episitle and then the Gospel.

GCK I think you prefer 1929 prayer book, so I would assume that you don’t hear an Old Testament reading in liturgy?

Are readings from the DCs ever done at Morning and Evening prayer in the 1929 BCP?

The Lectionaries of all the English Prayer Books from the first in 1549 contain lessons from the Deuterocanon for MP/EP. We’ve recently read quite a bit of Baruch at MP.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They decided what was printed. Are you suggesting that when a Roman Catholic publisher prints the NT by itself, said publisher is rejecting the rest of the canon?

Sure

 

[JonNC]

So the bottom line is that Publishers determined the Protestant Canon in the English language?

Oh my…

Of course not, Jose. The Gideans publish a pocket Bible that is only the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs. I don’t believe they intend to claim by doing so that that is the canon.

Further, there isn’t a “Protestant Canon”. The vast majority of non-Catholic western communions may agree on a 66 book Bible, but that by no means implies that their usage of it is the same. The Reformed may have a canon. If so, it is a Reformed canon. Baptists might, and theirs would be the Baptist canon.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course not, Jose. The Gideans publish a pocket Bible that is only the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs. I don’t believe they intend to claim by doing so that that is the canon.

Further, there isn’t a “Protestant Canon”. The vast majority of non-Catholic western communions may agree on a 66 book Bible, but that by no means implies that their usage of it is the same. The Reformed may have a canon. If so, it is a Reformed canon. Baptists might, and theirs would be the Baptist canon.

Jon

Jon, I’m after motive. As I believe motive is the driving engine behind an idea and/or action.

You and Novo are going off a rabbit trail that I will not follow. If you read itwin’s post he mentioned:

Because the Apocrypha were not used to establish doctrine, removing it was a convenient way to cut costs.

That is motive: to cut down costs.

Intent: Not used.

It’s just plain sad. The full Word of God didn’t make the cut with the publishers.

Not one voice raised an objection?

I mean, if both Catholics and Orthodox have a minimal agreement on the DC’s in Catholic Bibles and we can both trace our origin and Tradition back to Christ and the Apostles.

Who is to say otherwise?

Where is this divine revelation that said: “You must take these books out”.

We can trace these books all the way back in our Tradition and our Councils.

Where is yours? And the others?

If all that can be shown is a publishing decision…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

TEC uses them as well. They are actually in our Sunday readings here and there. I even know some Episcopalians that believe in Purgatory.

Lutheran lectionary also has readings from the Apocrypha.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that if the Catholic Bible has 46 OT Books and 27 NT books and the Protestants have 39 OT Books and 27 NT Books it is obvious to me that there is a difference between the Catholic Church canon and the Protestant canon as to what is considered inspired. I would like to say that most of my Protestant friends so not even know of the Deutrocanonical books as they do not seem to have them in the KJV Bibles. So it appears that they are not in the Protestant canon.

 

[ltwin]

So the bottom line is that Publishers determined the Protestant Canon in the English language?

Oh my…

Not really. If you think about it. The Apocrypha was never used to confirm doctrine, it was only thought good and beneficial for Christians to read. It was clearly separated from both the Old and New Testaments, so people knew it was not on the same level. In many ways, it was sort of there to give people an idea about what happened in the intertestamental period and therefore a greater perspective on the Old and New Testaments. Both the King James Version and the Geneva Bible featured cross references to the Apocrypha in the New Testament to aid readers. So, in some ways, it served as a bridge between the Testaments.

If Protestants had really thought that the Apocrypha was integral to the Canon, publishers would never have been allowed to remove it. But, the fact that the Protestant Reformation occurred in the 1500s and the Apocrypha continued to be included in Protestant Bibles until the mid-1800s is a fact that everyone should keep in mind when they discuss this issue. It was not some knee-jerk reaction that led to the disappearance of the Apocrypha, but rather Protestants were quite slow to remove it.